The black boxes from Air india disaster.

[Mike_P]

Air accident reports don't make statements like that for long-established reasons.

It is clear from the Interim Report that it was a human hand that intervened - indeed we have a first-hand witness* who is reported to have asked the other pilot why did he cutoff (not if)

*via the cockpit voice recorder, not fully transcribed in the report.

And the reply was he hadn't. Given the planes took longer than normal to lift the issues are probably more complex.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

And the reply was he hadn't. Given the planes took longer than normal to lift the issues are probably more complex.

The take off was completely normal until fuel cut-off.

 

[markemark]

The report did not say the pilot did it. To summarise the report to say the report said the pilot did it is misrepresentation.

You could say it is clear from the report that the most likely explanation is the pilot did it. Or that there’s no evidence in the report to conclude it was anything but them pilot. But to say the report said the pilot did it is wrong.

I’m sure the pilot is by far the most likely explanation. But that’s my conclusion from reading the report. Not me quoting the report

 

[Psamathe]

And the reply was he hadn't. Given the planes took longer than normal to lift the issues are probably more complex.

Also, a lot of detail I certainly have no idea about eg the switches and indicators - does the indicator show the position of the switch of the state of the fuel supply. I used to work developing software for control systems and normally an indicator would reflect the state of the system rather than the position of a switch. But I have no idea about aircraft.

And as you say, undercarriage wasn't raised (expert commentators interviewed on TV suggested it would normally be raised a lot sooner) - I've no idea but maybe pilots were dealing with higher priority stuff or maybe indicating something else?

Ian

 

[DaveReading]

Excellent write up of that, and it's exact causes. I regularly read that authors articles as they are excellent.

Any article that, at this early stage, purports to identify the "exact causes" isn't worth the proverbial paper that it's written on.

There are several possible scenarios that can't be ruled out yet.

 

[night cycler]

Currently the preliminary cause is looking like pilot error, as far as the news reports.

India's AAIB is expected to produce a more detailed report in 12 months.

 

[DaveReading]

Currently the preliminary cause is looking like pilot error, as far as the news reports.

India's AAIB is expected to produce a more detailed report in 12 months.

"Preliminary cause" is meaningless.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

The report did not say the pilot did it. To summarise the report to say the report said the pilot did it is misrepresentation.

You could say it is clear from the report that the most likely explanation is the pilot did it. Or that there’s no evidence in the report to conclude it was anything but them pilot. But to say the report said the pilot did it is wrong.

Fair enough. Happy to correct the record. That a pilot physically moved those two fuel cut-off switches is my conclusion from the evidence in the interim report. It is also the conclusion of every informed commentator I have read so far. I have explained in detail why I believe that to be the case, based on the contents of the report and the absence of any action relating to the operation of other 787s.

Could you perhaps in turn elaborate on your wiring and switch theories of last night. What in the report lead you to those?

 

[Bonefish Blues]

Any article that, at this early stage, purports to identify the "exact causes" isn't worth the proverbial paper that it's written on.

There are several possible scenarios that can't be ruled out yet.

Could you please outline these?

 

[Bonefish Blues]

Currently the preliminary cause is looking like pilot error, as far as the news reports.

India's AAIB is expected to produce a more detailed report in 12 months.

The cause is the engine fuel supply was turned off. There was insufficient time for the engines to spool up once fuel supply was re-established. The interim report says that.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

Also, a lot of detail I certainly have no idea about eg the switches and indicators - does the indicator show the position of the switch of the state of the fuel supply. I used to work developing software for control systems and normally an indicator would reflect the state of the system rather than the position of a switch. But I have no idea about aircraft.

And as you say, undercarriage wasn't raised (expert commentators interviewed on TV suggested it would normally be raised a lot sooner) - I've no idea but maybe pilots were dealing with higher priority stuff or maybe indicating something else?

Ian

Juan Brown's video above is worth 16 mins of your time in the context of both the accident and 787 operation at take off.

 

[markemark]

Fair enough. Happy to correct the record. That a pilot physically moved those two fuel cut-off switches is my conclusion from the evidence in the interim report. It is also the conclusion of every informed commentator I have read so far. I have explained in detail why I believe that to be the case, based on the contents of the report and the absence of any action relating to the operation of other 787s.

Could you perhaps in turn elaborate on your wiring and switch theories of last night. What in the report lead you to those?

I can’t as I have no knowledge of what happened and what the faults were other than a preliminary report My point is simply that people are stating the report said the pilot did it. It doesn’t.

 

[wiggydiggy]

Any article that, at this early stage, purports to identify the "exact causes" isn't worth the proverbial paper that it's written on.

There are several possible scenarios that can't be ruled out yet.

I agree, but that article is a write up of another flight someone mentioned.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

I can’t as I have no knowledge of what happened and what the faults were other than a preliminary report My point is simply that people are stating the report said the pilot did it. It doesn’t.

It might have been better to simply say that.

 

[wiggydiggy]

The cause is the engine fuel supply was turned off. There was insufficient time for the engines to spool up once fuel supply was re-established. The interim report says that.

I've read today that both fuel switches were back on, and 1 engine had spooled back up but had not developed enough thrust to keep them airborne.

I'm erring towards some sort of failure, rather than deliberate act.